Justice Committee on Feb. 12th, 2008

[Raynald Marchand]

The study looked at the governments of Japan and Australia. I believe it also looked at how things were done in about 40 US states, but not in all 52 states.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

So then, of these 77 governments, the majority were US state governments. Correct?

[Raynald Marchand]

The report also focused on Europe, Japan and Australia.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

I see.

[Émile Therrien]

I think it's important to emphasize that there's no federal criminal legislation in the United States affecting impaired driving; it's all in the states.

[Andrew Murie]

Just so I can finish, I think it's a gross estimation of what countries actually have 0.08. In fact, the majority--and I think you heard from Dr. Mann--have 0.05 or lower, whether administratively or criminally.

There is another piece that I think you, as federal parliamentarians, have to look at. Do we want to be known to have the harshest penalties, or do we want to be smarter and comprehensive and save lives? This issue should not be about having the toughest penalties; this should be about stopping impaired driving at the front end, and that's why we're talking about random breath testing. That's why we're talking about lower BACs. We know those measures worldwide will save lives. Our organization wants nothing to do with the harshest penalties. Let's be smart about impaired driving and move on from there.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Réal Ménard]

Thank you very much. Your time is up. Perhaps there is time for one last quick comment.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Would you care to comment, Mr. Mann?

[Dr. Robert Mann]

Thank you very much.

I would agree that it's more important to be effective than harsh. There are two studies in the scientific literature that look at the impact of the 0.05 roadside regulations that we have in provinces now that find no significant impact on fatality rates. So they are largely ineffective, and that's why, as a researcher, I would look at the 0.05 criminal levels that show an impact on fatality rates and support those.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Freeman.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Réal Ménard]

You are welcome, Ms. Freeman.

You have the floor, Mr. Comartin.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Merci, monsieur le président.

Just to follow that up, Mr. Therrien and Mr. Marchand—and Mr. Murie, you may want to comment as well—in looking at the charts here, there's a large number of countries, 25 or 30 countries, that have a 0.05 limit. Does that lower the death rate or serious injury rate?

[Émile Therrien]

We have a 0.05 limit in Canada, in every jurisdiction except Quebec. In the other countries you refer to, it's a non-criminal 0.05; it's an administrative suspension.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

That doesn't answer my question.

On the 0.05 limit, we've heard from Mr. Murie about the questionable enforcement of that across the country at the provincial level--its effectiveness in being enforced.

First, do you agree that we're not effectively enforcing it, as Mr. Murie has suggested? If you agree that we're not effectively enforcing it, do the other countries, if they effectively enforce it, drive down the death rates?

[Raynald Marchand]

We believe so. For example, in Australia, which has a 0.05 limit that is non-criminal, they do have a lot of enforcement through what they call the “booze bust”, which is random breath testing in large volume. Certainly we would encourage that in Canada.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Marchand, Australia has six states. Do they...?

[Raynald Marchand]

They're all separate, six states.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Is the 0.05 limit at the state level, not at the federal level?

[Émile Therrien]

I think New South Wales was the last to go down to 0.05. They were at 0.08. I think it was within the last couple of years.

I might be wrong on that statement, but one of them did.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

They do not have a federal 0.05 limit.

[Émile Therrien]

No.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Murie.

[Andrew Murie]

You can look at when it went from 0.15 to 0.10, and 0.10 in the United States to 0.08, and then 0.08 to 0.05. In every country that lowered their limits, what was the effect? It saved lives from drinking drivers and fatal alcohol-related crashes, as well as in terms of injuries and personal property. There is not one country that has lowered their limits that hasn't experienced that positive saving of life.

The evidence is overwhelming. The issue here in Canada is how we're going to do it, whether we're going to do it federally towards the Criminal Code or allow the provinces to do it.

My disappointment is that in the three years the provinces have been given the model to implement, not one province has come close to implementing that model. Even Ontario, as Mr. Marchand talked about, is going halfway. It's a minimum of seven days, and they're starting off with three. You have to have an impact on that drinking driver, and that's what the most important piece is.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

In terms of the enforcement, you would see a greater amount of suspension as being one of the tools to make that enforcement more effective. Is that correct?